Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Death Penalty Should be brought in and applied to every crime there is. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Execution for going 21mph in a 20 limit :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If people would actually think before posting 'serious threads', yeh, that'd be great.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Reminds me of a Star Trek episode (only watched a few) where the discover an island which the punishment for every crime is death by injection.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    will be legalised after the world sees how well it works it the USA my friend. Also, it is really only applied to repeat offenders. If this was the case then the people who caused the death of a child (Damilola Taylor) wouldn't be walking the streets today as one example.
    'How well it works'? There was an experiment by a Scotland yard unit, by allowing people caught with small amounts of cannabis of, allowing them to keep it, needless to say, chaos ensued. Drug dealers appeared from everywhere, examples of class A/B drug abuse rose sharply. But yes, definitely - allowing cannabis to become legal would be a brilliant idea. Definitely not a gateway drug or anything...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    How is life not a right?
    It simply isn't, though considered as such by many states and legal systems, I do not consider it to be so.
    The world is a hard place, we come into it, and we make our own way, there are no inaliable rights, everything is earned and fought to be retained.

    And once again you miss the point, the idea that the government should be able to just take a life and then get away with it by throwing money at the family is ridiculous and obscene. Especially so if that life was wrongfully taken when they were put to death for a crime they did not commit.
    Then we disagree on this topic, the taking of a life is a just and fair punishment for a whole host of offenses.
    Mistakes are often made, a life can never be returned I agree, but I would rather compensation in some form than none.
    The government does provide justice and punishment, the death penalty is by no means a requirements nor a deal breaker with such a thing
    .
    Hardly, our justice system is inept and broken.


    You might prefer to have the odd risk but when that odd risks turns out to be an innocent life wrongly put to death I think it's not just something we can nor should allow.
    Then hold tha topinion.

    Plus I don't think you'd be quite so keen if it was a family member of yours or someone you are/were rather close to. There is much wrong with the system but the death penalty isn't the answer and it certainly isn't the be all and end all.
    I very much doubt it would change my opinion, as long as the system did it's best and followed the proper regulations I would hold no ill feeling.

    Watch this.

    Watched it when it was first shown, and have seen it again.

    It does not sway me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Because they probably know more about those sort of things than you. In fact I'd wager that they really do know a lot more than you.
    It's not a matter of knowledge, if they are of the weak opinion that life is somehow scared, then that is there opinion.

    Mine is different, unless of course you equate a difference of opinion instantly with ignorance?

    In which case, shame on you.

    So it's liberal and out of touch to say that people don't have a right to life?
    Not at all, the oposite.

    And you disagree? Therefore you don't have a right to life? Therefore your life has less meaning and your death should be less of a big deal?
    I have no inalieble right to life, and my life should be forfit for a host of reasons if I transgress certain boundaries.

    My death would not be a big deal except maybe to my family and friends, I am no vain fool who thinks I am special or above others.


    Which would make you a murderer putting you in the shoes of the very people you wish to see put to death. Wonderful.
    Indeed it would, but I would gladly die for my beliefs.
    And people who hold certain beliefs need to be overthrown and put down like the dogs they are.
    Death and violence is a required part of social change in many circumstances.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Personally I think we should just get rid of every criminal there is. People talk about human rights etc. however I believe a man who doesn't keep his word is not a man at all. So in that case, they rid themselves of their human rights the day they decided to steal, rape or kill.

    Obviously not all thieves will get the death penalty, only second time offenders and even then this is down to the judge. However I would have no sympathy seeing a 20yr old who stole someone's bike for example killed.

    As for killing innocent people, obviously the death penalty would only be brought in to people with clear cut evidence against them. For example strong DNA samples, video tape etc. That said, locking someone away for many years for a crime they didn't do is probably a worse scenario in my personal opinion. The thought of being locked away, having your youth taken away, thinking of some other man/woman taking your ex-partner and starting a family, someone else taking your job and just the general feelings of being replaced and forgotten so quickly as you rot away in some cell waiting only on years is to probably worse than death.

    Should we bring in the death penalty and extend it to every crime that has a prison time sentence?
    You are too immature to post here and you obviously know nothing about life and death. Come back in 5 years.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    It simply isn't, though considered as such by many states and legal systems, I do not consider it to be so.
    The world is a hard place, we come into it, and we make our own way, there are no inaliable rights, everything is earned and fought to be retained.
    There are things earned and fought for but life is something given and kept for as long as you can. I don't see why a person can't have a right to life why a person cannot have the right to live over the prospect of an early death.

    [quote] Then we disagree on this topic, the taking of a life is a just and fair punishment for a whole host of offenses.
    Mistakes are often made, a life can never be returned I agree, but I would rather compensation in some form than none. [/quote[

    Taking a life might seem just in the cases of a horrible crime and I don't deny that at times I look at them and what they have done with distaste but the death penalty is just too flawed. Contrary to what you believe if just one innocent person is put to death accidently because of the system then it is a flawed system and that should not be acceptable no matter how much those people that are truly guilty might deserve it.
    Furthermore you might believe it is acceptable to throw money at people who have lost someone who was wrongly put to death and you might think it's ok to then say "well if they don't like it they can just burn the money" but actually neither of those things are acceptable nor should they ever be. Once again you are saying that the government should be able to put people to death wrongly and then get away scott free by just throwing money at the issue. If someone I was related to or knew well was wrongly put to death I would want more than money, I would want justice. I would want people to lose their jobs.
    Obviously you care little for human life and for the value of human life instead opting for full on justice in the form of some sort of totalitarian "put them to death and to hell with the consequences" sort of way. What a terribly old fashioned and outdated view to have.

    .
    Hardly, our justice system is inept and broken.
    But it still provides punishment.

    Then hold tha topinion.
    I do

    I very much doubt it would change my opinion, as long as the system did it's best and followed the proper regulations I would hold no ill feeling.
    Not that I would ever wish such a thing upon you but I think it's easy for you to say not it would not change you but really I think it would. I think it would seem pretty bitter and hurtful if the state put a relative of yours to death for a crime they did not commit and then just throw money at you at the hope that you'd forgive them and carry on as normal. There are more than a few stories of people who have been in jail for months, years even and have finally be released after having been found innocent after all. Barry George was jailed for the murder of Jill Dando but then later was found innocent. If people like you get your way he would have been executed. That simply isn't right no matter how many times you try. It cannot be justified.


    Watched it when it was first shown, and have seen it again.

    It does not sway me.
    You don't say. It's a shame really because he puts forward a simply yet effective argument as to why it is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Just downloaded a song from the internet without realising it was illegal


    Better execute them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    There are things earned and fought for but life is something given and kept for as long as you can. I don't see why a person can't have a right to life why a person cannot have the right to live over the prospect of an early death.
    Perhaps I should clarify, you have the right to life and that life is yours.
    But you do not have the right to retain it if you cross certain boundaries or commit certain actions.
    It is possible to loose this right.

    So to clarify you do have a right to life, just not an inalienable one.


    Taking a life might seem just in the cases of a horrible crime and I don't deny that at times I look at them and what they have done with distaste but the death penalty is just too flawed. Contrary to what you believe if just one innocent person is put to death accidently because of the system then it is a flawed system and that should not be acceptable no matter how much those people that are truly guilty might deserve it.
    Contrary to what you believe I do not believe that is the case.
    I do not expect perfection, every system is flawed, I do not expect anything else.

    [quite]Furthermore you might believe it is acceptable to throw money at people who have lost someone who was wrongly put to death and you might think it's ok to then say "well if they don't like it they can just burn the money" but actually neither of those things are acceptable nor should they ever be. [/quote]
    That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
    In light of this, since you think there is no compensation that is adequate, I propose that no compensation is given in any form to the families.
    Perhaps a state apology.

    Once again you are saying that the government should be able to put people to death wrongly and then get away scott free by just throwing money at the issue. If someone I was related to or knew well was wrongly put to death I would want more than money, I would want justice. I would want people to lose their jobs.
    Perhaps they would lose there jobs if serious flaws in investigations, evidence and the trial were found.
    That would be 100% acceptable to demand, I agree with you.

    Obviously you care little for human life and for the value of human life instead opting for full on justice in the form of some sort of totalitarian "put them to death and to hell with the consequences" sort of way. What a terribly old fashioned and outdated view to have.
    I care for it more than you would think, and have been involved with death a lot more than most people.

    It is not "To hell with the consequences" I have never adovocated that.
    All I have adovocated is that as a form of punishment , mistkaes are an acceptable trade of.


    But it still provides punishment.
    It does not go far enough.

    I do
    Good stuff.



    Not that I would ever wish such a thing upon you but I think it's easy for you to say not it would not change you but really I think it would. I think it would seem pretty bitter and hurtful if the state put a relative of yours to death for a crime they did not commit and then just throw money at you at the hope that you'd forgive them and carry on as normal. There are more than a few stories of people who have been in jail for months, years even and have finally be released after having been found innocent after all. Barry George was jailed for the murder of Jill Dando but then later was found innocent. If people like you get your way he would have been executed. That simply isn't right no matter how many times you try. It cannot be justified.
    It would not be ideal, but it would be an acceptable loss for the system.

    You don't say. It's a shame really because he puts forward a simply yet effective argument as to why it is wrong.
    One that you have pretty much regurgitated, and one I have heard a hundred times before, I disagree with it.

    Sue me, except don't.....I'm saving up for stuff..need the money.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I seriously think we should do it saudi style. Yeah... using the death penalty a lot more frequently may reduce crimes by 95%, but hand mutilation would reduce crimes by 85% and it is a lot more humane relatively speaking.

    Those percentages are made up, but they convey my idea of the percentage trade off between each option.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    It's not a matter of knowledge, if they are of the weak opinion that life is somehow scared, then that is there opinion.

    Mine is different, unless of course you equate a difference of opinion instantly with ignorance?

    In which case, shame on you.
    If you think it's weak to think that life is sacred then I pity you. However I think there comes a point when opinion can and should be used to ensure that life is preserved and prolonged to give people the best chance no matter what their situation.

    I don't think a different opinion automatically equals ignorance. Where did I suggest that?

    Not at all, the oposite.
    Then explain.

    I have no inalieble right to life, and my life should be forfit for a host of reasons if I transgress certain boundaries.
    The state shouldn't assume and it should be allowed to assume that it can simply take a life if it deems it necessary. That's rather totalitarian.

    Indeed it would, but I would gladly die for my beliefs.
    And people who hold certain beliefs need to be overthrown and put down like the dogs they are.
    Death and violence is a required part of social change in many circumstances.
    Death and violence is required for social change? I disagree (obviously) and certainly when suggesting that the death penalty is part of that. The death penalty isn't there for social change It would be there to act as the ultimate punishment for the most heinous of crimes (supposedly) and yet socially there is little to prove right now that it would drastically reduce crime rates in the way that some supporters hope it would. So I think suggesting it should be brought in for social change is a stretch.

    Albert Pierrepoint one of the most famous executioners in British history became an opponent to it after he retired saying:

    "It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder"

    I think that he makes that point rather well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilyas)
    I seriously think we should do it saudi style. Yeah... using the death penalty a lot more frequently may reduce crimes by 95%, but hand mutilation would reduce crimes by 85% and it is a lot more humane relatively speaking.

    Those percentages are made up, but they convey my idea of the percentage trade off between each option.
    I'd rather we didn't resort to medieval barbaric practices of countries such as Saudi Arabia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why are people on TSR so easy to troll?

    3/10.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    If you think it's weak to think that life is sacred then I pity you. However I think there comes a point when opinion can and should be used to ensure that life is preserved and prolonged to give people the best chance no matter what their situation.

    I don't think a different opinion automatically equals ignorance. Where did I suggest that?
    It seemed to be the tone of your posts.


    Then explain.
    You added a word and changed the positive to the negative, so I played you.
    Read back your post, you will see where you went wrong...just a typo on your end.

    You said
    So it's liberal and out of touch to say that people don't have a right to life?
    When it's liberal and out of touch to say people DO have an (inaliable) right to life.

    The state shouldn't assume and it should be allowed to assume that it can simply take a life if it deems it necessary. That's rather totalitarian.
    Of course it's totalitarian.
    What's your point?


    Death and violence is required for social change? I disagree (obviously) and certainly when suggesting that the death penalty is part of that. The death penalty isn't there for social change It would be there to act as the ultimate punishment for the most heinous of crimes (supposedly) and yet socially there is little to prove right now that it would drastically reduce crime rates in the way that some supporters hope it would. So I think suggesting it should be brought in for social change is a stretch.
    Oh no I wasn't suggesting the death penalty is a method of social change.

    I was saying that to overthrow regimes and governments sometimes violence is required.
    More specifically that if a government told me that I could not hold a certain views, and had to think and speak a certain way.
    I would consider it my duty to act out against that.

    Albert Pierrepoint one of the most famous executioners in British history became an opponent to it after he retired saying:

    "It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder"

    I think that he makes that point rather well.
    So he changed his mind?
    Woop?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Perhaps I should clarify, you have the right to life and that life is yours.
    But you do not have the right to retain it if you cross certain boundaries or commit certain actions.
    It is possible to loose this right.

    So to clarify you do have a right to life, just not an inalienable one.
    The right to life means that a person should be able to keep their life and it probably also means that the state should really be careful about dictating who and who shouldn't be able to keep it otherwise they might tempt fate with a backlash.

    Contrary to what you believe I do not believe that is the case.
    I do not expect perfection, every system is flawed, I do not expect anything else.
    The system is flawed therefore it is very likely that it is only a matter of time before an innocent person Is put to death correct? And yet that is completely ok?

    That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
    No that is my opinion and I have a right to say it. But thanks for saying I'm welcome to it, I really needed to hear that.

    In light of this, since you think there is no compensation that is adequate, I propose that no compensation is given in any form to the families.
    Perhaps a state apology.
    Wow, so now instead of one half assed meaningless gesture you now want another half assed and meaningless gesture instead? What exactly would that achieve apart from telling the country and the world that they were wrong. What then? What will have been achieved? It might stir a debate for a while but it's doubtful anything would come of it.
    Really that is probably and even worse suggestion that the idea of throwing money at the family.

    Perhaps they would lose there jobs if serious flaws in investigations, evidence and the trial were found.
    That would be 100% acceptable to demand, I agree with you.
    Really that should be the minimum if such an occurrence takes place though I hope we never have to entertain the idea of the death penalty returning.

    I care for it more than you would think, and have been involved with death a lot more than most people.

    It is not "To hell with the consequences" I have never adovocated that.
    All I have adovocated is that as a form of punishment , mistkaes are an acceptable trade of.
    Obviously you care little for the consequences if you think it's ok to just pay off families or if you think a simple public apology is enough. And when it comes to something like the death penalty it isn't acceptable or enough to say "well mistakes are an acceptable trade off." That isn't good enough.

    It does not go far enough.
    Then they should try and fix it before entertaining the idea of bringing back the death penalty, because the DP is a slippery slope.

    It would not be ideal, but it would be an acceptable loss for the system.
    That's where you're wrong I'm afraid, I just don't think it's an acceptable loss by any standards.

    Sue me, except don't.....I'm saving up for stuff..need the money.
    Well that's absurd, why would I sue you for disagreeing with me?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    It seemed to be the tone of your posts.
    Maybe you're reading the tone of my posts wrong.

    Of course it's totalitarian.
    What's your point?
    What's my point? Well if it's totalitarian then it shouldn't be the path to go down. It's pretty obvious.

    Oh no I wasn't suggesting the death penalty is a method of social change.

    I was saying that to overthrow regimes and governments sometimes violence is required.
    More specifically that if a government told me that I could not hold a certain views, and had to think and speak a certain way.
    I would consider it my duty to act out against that.
    Well indeed but I don't see what that's got to do with the death penalty.


    So he changed his mind?
    Woop?
    Well that's a nice simplistic view of it. What I would call it is an opinion based on a lifetime in the service of the prison service and taking part in the act of administering the death penalty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Personally I think we should just get rid of every criminal there is. People talk about human rights etc. however I believe a man who doesn't keep his word is not a man at all. So in that case, they rid themselves of their human rights the day they decided to steal, rape or kill.

    Obviously not all thieves will get the death penalty, only second time offenders and even then this is down to the judge. However I would have no sympathy seeing a 20yr old who stole someone's bike for example killed.

    As for killing innocent people, obviously the death penalty would only be brought in to people with clear cut evidence against them. For example strong DNA samples, video tape etc. That said, locking someone away for many years for a crime they didn't do is probably a worse scenario in my personal opinion. The thought of being locked away, having your youth taken away, thinking of some other man/woman taking your ex-partner and starting a family, someone else taking your job and just the general feelings of being replaced and forgotten so quickly as you rot away in some cell waiting only on years is to probably worse than death.

    Should we bring in the death penalty and extend it to every crime that has a prison time sentence?
    Looks like totalitarianism :fuhrer:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Combined the posts my friend!

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    The right to life means that a person should be able to keep their life and it probably also means that the state should really be careful about dictating who and who shouldn't be able to keep it otherwise they might tempt fate with a backlash.
    Hopefully the state will be careful.



    The system is flawed therefore it is very likely that it is only a matter of time before an innocent person Is put to death correct? And yet that is completely ok?
    It is not "completely" ok, but it is an acceptable risk given the circumstance.

    As in war, it is never ok to loose a soldier or a friend, but yet we still have acceptable loss ratios for every engagement.


    No that is my opinion and I have a right to say it. But thanks for saying I'm welcome to it, I really needed to hear that.
    Glad I helped!



    Wow, so now instead of one half assed meaningless gesture you now want another half assed and meaningless gesture instead? What exactly would that achieve apart from telling the country and the world that they were wrong. What then? What will have been achieved? It might stir a debate for a while but it's doubtful anything would come of it.
    Really that is probably and even worse suggestion that the idea of throwing money at the family.
    What "other" gesture are you talking about?
    I proposed removing gestures, nothing was added.

    When you take away things...you end up with less than you started with.

    That's how mathmatics works.

    Unless you didn't realize the state apology would automatically come with the monetary comepensation.
    Durp?



    Really that should be the minimum if such an occurrence takes place though I hope we never have to entertain the idea of the death penalty returning.
    I look forward to the day when it does.


    Obviously you care little for the consequences if you think it's ok to just pay off families or if you think a simple public apology is enough. And when it comes to something like the death penalty it isn't acceptable or enough to say "well mistakes are an acceptable trade off." That isn't good enough.
    Yes it is.


    Then they should try and fix it before entertaining the idea of bringing back the death penalty, because the DP is a slippery slope.
    Bringing back the death penalty is "part" of fixing it.

    That's where you're wrong I'm afraid, I just don't think it's an acceptable loss by any standards.
    That's where your wrong I'm afraid, I just think it's an acceptable loss by all standards.


    Well that's absurd, why would I sue you for disagreeing with me?
    It's a common english phrase
    "So sue me!"



    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Maybe you're reading the tone of my posts wrong.
    Perhaps, crazier things have happened, and ive made mistakes before.



    What's my point? Well if it's totalitarian then it shouldn't be the path to go down. It's pretty obvious.
    Why?
    (You should know that I am a Fascist by the way, if it wasn't already blatantly obvious by my Sig and DP)
    I am very much in favor of Totalitarianism.



    Well indeed but I don't see what that's got to do with the death penalty.
    The discussion came of the back of a comment I made to another user.
    Your the one who commented on it...not me.




    Well that's a nice simplistic view of it. What I would call it is an opinion based on a lifetime in the service of the prison service and taking part in the act of administering the death penalty.
    Of course it's an opinion.
    Opinions are not always correct.

    Edit: I probably won't reply again tonight, of upstairs to watch some TV with the wife.
    All the best and blessings my friend!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Even if you ignore the moral problems with this... surely it would encourage thieves to kill their witnesses, for instance, since they've got nothing to loose and hence they just have to avoid getting caught at all costs.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.